They have this great versatile platform in the iPhone/iPod Touch and yet when you buy something at an Apple Store, the sales clerk whips out this clunky WinCE driven mobile checkout device that, at least when I made a purchase, got a little buggy. Physician, heal thyself!
They have this great versatile platform in the iPhone/iPod Touch and yet when you buy something at an Apple Store, the sales clerk whips out this clunky WinCE driven mobile checkout device that, at least when I made a purchase, got a little buggy. Physician, heal thyself!
With only 251 Apple stores worldwide it's cost prohibitive for Apple to produce their own PoS HW and SW when there are plenty of devices on the markets. I imagine that this will change as soon as good 3rd-party PoS device is made for the Touch.
Hate to burst your bubble but churches are among some of the fastest adopters Macs & OS X.
Religion is not to blame for lack of progress, stupid people are. Before you go spouting off something about the battle between the church & science (probably spouting something off about Darwin) remember that some of the greatest scientific minds have been deeply religious.
By the way, Hitler used Darwinian theory to justify the killing of the Jews. That doesn't make Darwin's theory evil, just Hitler.
Wow, you seem to have formulated a whole argument about things I never said, perhaps a pe prepared knee jerk reaction held in abeyance till needed?
It's easy to find a few exceptions but few historians would argue over the centuries (and even the last eight years in the US for that matter) that religion has helped scientific advancement. Don't take it personally, I defend your right or anyone's right to believe whatever they want. As to scientists with deep religious convictions, it was this very thing that seems to have prevented Einstein himself accepting Quantum Mechanics even though he in effect made that field of knowledge open up. This is another debate for another forum I guess. However I am pleased to hear"churches are among some of the fastest adopters Macs & OS X', as a share holder I am thrilled and would love to learn more, can you supply the source of this data please?
3) FDA approval is time consuming, expensive and a real pain in the ass. If folks are wondering why some programs never got ported to the Mac, this is why.
Here's are a sample of a few companies that will "help" you. It's not cheap.
Recertifying an insulin device to talk to the iPhone may take a lot longer than you think.
Fortunately I don't work in the medical software field and I stay the hell away for a good reason.
Having guided 5 different devices and software through FDA approval (class 2) this is simply an example of how NOT to do it (as it actually says in the presentation). If you use common sense and planning FDA approval is not that difficult (especially for non-critical software - which this is) provided you structure things properly up front. It does take some planning. One of the devices I guided through was a $2.5 million brain scanning device with over 400,000 lines of code. The process from submission to approval was about 120 days and the total man weeks on the effort was far less. Its true you can't just 'whip it out' but good developers shouldn't scared away from these apps with war stories like this. Risk analysis up front is the key. 'What am I really trying to do and present?' 'Where can it go wrong and how do I tell?' It really no worse than doing proper software development and making sure you handle the corner cases as you should.
What should be much more carefully thought through is product liability. If someone uses this software as an example and they go into insulin shock did the software contribute (or could someone argue that it did). This is a much bigger deal than FDA. If you handle this appropriately you'll have all you need for the FDA submission.
What should be much more carefully thought through is product liability. If someone uses this software as an example and they go into insulin shock did the software contribute (or could someone argue that it did). This is a much bigger deal than FDA. If you handle this appropriately you'll have all you need for the FDA submission.
Given I've never done this I defer to your experience. Of course, there are liability issues even for the software I do develop that without our legal department I would be hesitant to do so as in independent developer without some careful thought on protecting personal assets and better understanding as to when and what actions pierce the corporate veil.
Yes, planning for FDA approval is part of the medical software development process but one that most devs don't have personal experience with and in normal software development there is seriously a different level of rigor. Even for 5 nines, uber uptime devices...which are often very haphazardly developed. Given I have worked that industry and with devs from Lucent, Nortel, Ciena, Cisco, etc I'm always mildly amazed when I pick up the phone and hear dial tone...somewhere in all that infrastructure is some really crappy code developed at 3AM...
Most software doesn't handle corner cases except by accident. I've seen some MPLS protection code that doesn't. Heck, it didn't even handle the protection/fail over cases it should have.
As a diabetic I applaud Apple's venture into health monitoring. However, as someone who has followed the healthcare and Pharmaceutical industry's progress for over 15 years, I have seen devices from many companies that are leaps and bounds beyond the current blood glucose monitoring devices that requiring the antiquated finger pricking and test strips of today. As the current blood monitoring devices require thousands of test strips per year for the average diabetic (I test 8-10x a day, averaging a little over 3,000 test strips a year), that is a lot of money for health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I have used blood glucose monitors using infrared technology to scan any part of the body to determine blood glucose levels without test strips, with readings averaging 10+/- those of standard monitors. Of course companies will not sign off on such devices as companies would lose out on millions, if not billions, over ones lifetime. The same reasoning applies to curing diseases. Estimating the cost for one diabetic, or AIDS patient, in one lifetime as opposed to a cure (even an expensive cure) is staggering, and bean counters would never allow it.
The bottom line, when it comes to big business, money talks and everyone else is merely there cash puppet .
As a diabetic I applaud Apple's venture into health monitoring. However, as someone who has followed the healthcare and Pharmaceutical industry's progress for over 15 years, I have seen devices from many companies that are leaps and bounds beyond the current blood glucose monitoring devices that requiring the antiquated finger pricking and test strips of today. As the current blood monitoring devices require thousands of test strips per year for the average diabetic (I test 8-10x a day, averaging a little over 3,000 test strips a year), that is a lot of money for health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I have used blood glucose monitors using infrared technology to scan any part of the body to determine blood glucose levels without test strips, with readings averaging 10+/- those of standard monitors. Of course companies will not sign off on such devices as companies would lose out on millions, if not billions, over ones lifetime. The same reasoning applies to curing diseases. Estimating the cost for one diabetic, or AIDS patient, in one lifetime as opposed to a cure (even an expensive cure) is staggering, and bean counters would never allow it.
The bottom line, when it comes to big business, money talks and everyone else is merely there cash puppet .
Keep hoping I am sure progress is in the wind, in the US science is once again being allowed
People are just too cynical. Devices like this can really help someone's quality of life. I noticed they had some OB/GYN calendars on it as well as some drug reference databases. These seem handy to me. For example, Dr. gets paged at dinner with an inquiry on a patient at a pharmacy. Can look up dosing and interactions as she/he consults with Pharmacist. Minor feature for the rest of us, but potentially very handy.
And of course next season of 24, just think what Jack Bauer will be able to do with his iphone in terms of getting into buildings, looking up design schematics, etc.
People are just too cynical. Devices like this can really help someone's quality of life. I noticed they had some OB/GYN calendars on it as well as some drug reference databases. These seem handy to me. For example, Dr. gets paged at dinner with an inquiry on a patient at a pharmacy. Can look up dosing and interactions as she/he consults with Pharmacist. Minor feature for the rest of us, but potentially very handy.
And of course next season of 24, just think what Jack Bauer will be able to do with his iphone in terms of getting into buildings, looking up design schematics, etc.
Yes, jack will be able to access the 'pain' databases for maximum results
Comments
They have this great versatile platform in the iPhone/iPod Touch and yet when you buy something at an Apple Store, the sales clerk whips out this clunky WinCE driven mobile checkout device that, at least when I made a purchase, got a little buggy. Physician, heal thyself!
With only 251 Apple stores worldwide it's cost prohibitive for Apple to produce their own PoS HW and SW when there are plenty of devices on the markets. I imagine that this will change as soon as good 3rd-party PoS device is made for the Touch.
Hate to burst your bubble but churches are among some of the fastest adopters Macs & OS X.
Religion is not to blame for lack of progress, stupid people are. Before you go spouting off something about the battle between the church & science (probably spouting something off about Darwin) remember that some of the greatest scientific minds have been deeply religious.
By the way, Hitler used Darwinian theory to justify the killing of the Jews. That doesn't make Darwin's theory evil, just Hitler.
Wow, you seem to have formulated a whole argument about things I never said, perhaps a pe prepared knee jerk reaction held in abeyance till needed?
It's easy to find a few exceptions but few historians would argue over the centuries (and even the last eight years in the US for that matter) that religion has helped scientific advancement. Don't take it personally, I defend your right or anyone's right to believe whatever they want. As to scientists with deep religious convictions, it was this very thing that seems to have prevented Einstein himself accepting Quantum Mechanics even though he in effect made that field of knowledge open up. This is another debate for another forum I guess. However I am pleased to hear"churches are among some of the fastest adopters Macs & OS X', as a share holder I am thrilled and would love to learn more, can you supply the source of this data please?
http://www.pdastreet.com/articles/20...ears-Accu.html
http://www.allbusiness.com/medicine-...0181204-1.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86043.php
1) This kind of software capbility is not new.
2) FDA approval is needed.
3) FDA approval is time consuming, expensive and a real pain in the ass. If folks are wondering why some programs never got ported to the Mac, this is why.
Here's are a sample of a few companies that will "help" you. It's not cheap.
http://www.klocwork.com/solutions/fd...FQrAGgodCzif7g
http://www.citechtest.com/510(k).html
In other words...pay us $$$ or wait freaking months as your 510K paperwork sits in some pile on some desk somewhere.
This is an example of how much of a pain in the ass it can be if you have to meet Part 11 compliance:
Hardware Development: 15 man weeks
Software Specification: 1 man week.
System validation protocols: 101 man weeks.
16 weeks to build the damn thing. 101 weeks (of effort...not time although I bet it took a freaking long time too) to get through the FDA wickets.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC/...07_Hammond.ppt
Recertifying an insulin device to talk to the iPhone may take a lot longer than you think.
Fortunately I don't work in the medical software field and I stay the hell away for a good reason.
Having guided 5 different devices and software through FDA approval (class 2) this is simply an example of how NOT to do it (as it actually says in the presentation). If you use common sense and planning FDA approval is not that difficult (especially for non-critical software - which this is) provided you structure things properly up front. It does take some planning. One of the devices I guided through was a $2.5 million brain scanning device with over 400,000 lines of code. The process from submission to approval was about 120 days and the total man weeks on the effort was far less. Its true you can't just 'whip it out' but good developers shouldn't scared away from these apps with war stories like this. Risk analysis up front is the key. 'What am I really trying to do and present?' 'Where can it go wrong and how do I tell?' It really no worse than doing proper software development and making sure you handle the corner cases as you should.
What should be much more carefully thought through is product liability. If someone uses this software as an example and they go into insulin shock did the software contribute (or could someone argue that it did). This is a much bigger deal than FDA. If you handle this appropriately you'll have all you need for the FDA submission.
What should be much more carefully thought through is product liability. If someone uses this software as an example and they go into insulin shock did the software contribute (or could someone argue that it did). This is a much bigger deal than FDA. If you handle this appropriately you'll have all you need for the FDA submission.
Given I've never done this I defer to your experience. Of course, there are liability issues even for the software I do develop that without our legal department I would be hesitant to do so as in independent developer without some careful thought on protecting personal assets and better understanding as to when and what actions pierce the corporate veil.
Yes, planning for FDA approval is part of the medical software development process but one that most devs don't have personal experience with and in normal software development there is seriously a different level of rigor. Even for 5 nines, uber uptime devices...which are often very haphazardly developed. Given I have worked that industry and with devs from Lucent, Nortel, Ciena, Cisco, etc I'm always mildly amazed when I pick up the phone and hear dial tone...somewhere in all that infrastructure is some really crappy code developed at 3AM...
Most software doesn't handle corner cases except by accident.
The bottom line, when it comes to big business, money talks and everyone else is merely there cash puppet
As a diabetic I applaud Apple's venture into health monitoring. However, as someone who has followed the healthcare and Pharmaceutical industry's progress for over 15 years, I have seen devices from many companies that are leaps and bounds beyond the current blood glucose monitoring devices that requiring the antiquated finger pricking and test strips of today. As the current blood monitoring devices require thousands of test strips per year for the average diabetic (I test 8-10x a day, averaging a little over 3,000 test strips a year), that is a lot of money for health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I have used blood glucose monitors using infrared technology to scan any part of the body to determine blood glucose levels without test strips, with readings averaging 10+/- those of standard monitors. Of course companies will not sign off on such devices as companies would lose out on millions, if not billions, over ones lifetime. The same reasoning applies to curing diseases. Estimating the cost for one diabetic, or AIDS patient, in one lifetime as opposed to a cure (even an expensive cure) is staggering, and bean counters would never allow it.
The bottom line, when it comes to big business, money talks and everyone else is merely there cash puppet
Keep hoping I am sure progress is in the wind, in the US science is once again being allowed
And of course next season of 24, just think what Jack Bauer will be able to do with his iphone in terms of getting into buildings, looking up design schematics, etc.
People are just too cynical. Devices like this can really help someone's quality of life. I noticed they had some OB/GYN calendars on it as well as some drug reference databases. These seem handy to me. For example, Dr. gets paged at dinner with an inquiry on a patient at a pharmacy. Can look up dosing and interactions as she/he consults with Pharmacist. Minor feature for the rest of us, but potentially very handy.
And of course next season of 24, just think what Jack Bauer will be able to do with his iphone in terms of getting into buildings, looking up design schematics, etc.
Yes, jack will be able to access the 'pain' databases for maximum results